Morning:
14°c
A provocative nude picture of a 10-year-old Brooke Shields has been removed from display at Tate Modern art gallery following a police visit.
A spokeswoman for the gallery said the room containing the picture of the American actress had been temporarily closed while staff worked with officers from the Obscene Publications Unit.
The rest of the show, entitled Pop Life: Art In A Material World show, will remain open.
The work, called Spiritual America, by New York artist Richard Prince, was to go on display today.
It is a photograph of a photograph taken in 1975, which shows Shields standing in a bath with a heavily made up face and oil on her torso.
It hung in its own room apart from the rest of the exhibition with a warning notice outside saying the content was “challenging.”
Children's campaigners had condemned the Tate's decision to show the photograph, saying it was a “magnet” for paedophiles.
A police spokesman said: “Officers from the obscene publications unit met staff at the Tate Modern regarding an image.
“The officers have specialist experience in this field and are keen to work with gallery management to ensure that they do not inadvertently break the law or cause any offence to their visitors.”
The original photograph was taken by US photographer Garry Gross, and was commissioned by Shields's mother.
Shields, 44, tried unsuccessfully to buy the negatives in 1981.
Michele Elliot, of the charity Kidscape, said using a photograph of a naked child to attract people to an exhibition was “exploitative.”
She said: “Brooke Shields was 10 years old when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent to it being taken. It must be bordering on child pornography. It is certainly not art.”
Reader views (19)
@ Mark, South-East London
Yes you are correct, I thought the images were from the film "Pretty Baby". However, the image is in a similar vein to the film.
I hardly think the Tate is going to become a magnet for paedophiles because of an image that is freely available for viewing to billions of people online!
At least the image in the Tate would be in context with the rest of the exhibition. An exhibition that passed without issue in New York.
It is a little disturbing when the Police, of their own back, decide to take action when nobody has made a complaint do you not think?
Big Brother is watching you.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
"The images are from the film Pretty Baby (1978) an Academy Award-nominated film, not exactly porn is it?"
No, but British child porn laws (specifically the 1978 Protection of Children Act) are so draconian that context doesn't provide a legal defence. The Obscene Publications Act has an "artistic merit" get-out - but the PCA doesn't.
As a result, highly distinguished films like 'Pretty Baby' and 'The Tin Drum' had to be cut in this country, because otherwise their distributors would have been open to prosecution.
- Michael, London
frank, how can you think that a naked picture of a 10 year old being defined as art is a "knee jerk reaction"? - I really dont understand how this image can be construed as "art". i agree with tenchy, why does art have to shock or offend? that surely is not the basis of art?
- Gary, london
Whilst our attitudes may have changed since 1978/9, if the film Pretty Baby showed pictures of a young Brooke Shields naked, why was it not unacceptable then? I can only assume it was regarded as "art".
If, at the time Pretty Baby was first shown, there was a ban on children seeing it, then why not place these supposedly offensive photographs in a secure place for exhibition for visitors of 18 and above? Or is that too much to ask?
I also agree, in passing, with Brooke herself sayiong whether she has any objection to the current display.
- Captain Black Of The Mysterons, London, England
The naked human form has always been and always will be a prime subject for Art. Arguably it is Art's most important subject. It is as natural as child-birth for artists to wish to explore the naked child. The fact that we live in a world over-populated with cretins and paedophiles does not alter a noble artistic project. Art will survive this decadent age. The cretins and paedophiles will die their miserable deaths.
- Bloke, Lambeth
@ John Entwhistle. Some of the 'abuse obsessed' people have strong feelings because they HAVE been abused. There are more than you'd think out there.
A high percentage of paedophiles actually caught reveal they were abused as children. If there is concern, it's because for so many years children were disbelieved as they suffered abuse in silence from those in authority. The Catholic church in particular were very reluctant to come to terms with admitting to it happening. Trying to prevent children's lives being ruined by sexual abuse now relates to the widescale cover-ups in the past.
- Marion, Reading
What was her mother thinking, when she had full frontal nude pictures of her ten year old daughter, in full make up, taken? Maybe getting her daughter the part in the film Pretty Baby made this move seem worthwhile and a success to her mother, but I assure her it wasn't.
- Stephen, London
Melanie,
Brooke Shields doesn't own the rights to the photos; she hasn't got a say in the matter.
- Mark, South-East London
I'm not sure who I am most worried about; parents abusing their children for celebrity or the growing number of puritanical (but strangely abuse-obsessed) adults who frequent these debates.
- John Entwistle, Hertford, England
Did anyone think to ask for Brook Shields thoughts on the matter. If she gives consent what then?
- Melanie, milton keynes, bucks
Frank,
Pretty Baby, which was filmed 1978 and released in 1979. The "photo" the article refers to a picture taken in 1975. I've seen a head shot only version of the photo and there is no similarity.
- Mark, South-East London
why would you want to take a "picture" of a "NAKED 10 YEAR OLD GIRL" and define it as art?
- Gary, london
maybe i've missed the point but how on earth can a naked picture of a 10yr GIRL be defined as art?
- Gary, london
The images are from the film Pretty Baby (1978) an Academy Award-nominated film, not exactly porn is it?
Nothing like a bit of knee jerking reaction.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
“Brooke Shields was 10 years old when this picture was taken. She could not have given informed consent to it being taken.”
Two years later BS was playing the part of a prostitute in a film; perhaps she was forced into doing that!
- Mark, South-East London
Good way of getting publicity for the main part of the exhibition!
- Bob, London
What *were* they thinking of even considering this? She wasn't a consenting adult at the time. This just nudges paedophiles that bit further into thinking that what they do is OK. Gives a cloak of respectibility.
Shame on Tate Modern directors.
- Jools (Artist), London
No doubt the curators ( if they warrant such a term) can hide behind the fact that they took legal advice but that is not good enough. These places warrant funds partly as tourist attractions and there is no reason why their exhibitions should ever be unfit for "family" viewing. If its deemed necessary to show adult content it can be done in some trendy gallery in Cork Street with attendant publicity for those involved.
- Jack Spratt, Richmond, Surrey
Why, over the years, has there been a creeping equation of art = pornography. Can't these people tell the difference? And why, can anyone tell me, must art shock or offend? And why can't people stop exploiting women and children (and indeed men) for their horrible images?
- Tenchy, London UK
